ADVERTISEMENTs

UK’s oldest Indian restaurant faces closure amid lease dispute 

The restaurant is renowned for its rich culinary history and high-profile guests, including royalty and celebrities.

Veeraswamy / Wikipedia

The United Kingdom’s oldest Indian restaurant is facing potential closure after nearly a century of continuous operation due to a lease dispute with the owners, Crown Estate. 

The Michelin-starred establishment, Veeraswamy, located at Victory House on Regent Street, may be forced to vacate its premises as the Crown Estate plans a major refurbishment of the listed building.​

Also Read: UK Indian restaurant receives Annapurna Certificate 

Established in 1926 by Edward Palmer, Veeraswamy has been a fixture of British-Indian dining, serving guests over the decades ranging from Marlon Brando to the late Queen Elizabeth II. 

It was revitalized in the 1980s by Ranjit Mathrani and Namita Panjabi, who poured resources into recreating its past glories. In 2016, it was awarded a Michelin star. ​

The Crown Estate, which manages royal properties, plans to refurbish the building’s offices and expand the ground-floor reception area, necessitating the removal of Veeraswamy’s entrance and preventing lease renewal. According to the Crown Estate, the layout constraints of the historic structure leave limited options for refurbishment without removing the restaurant’s entrance. ​

Co-owner Ranjit Mathrani, who acquired the restaurant in 1996 alongside Namita Panjabi, has put forward multiple proposals to preserve the restaurant’s operations at its historic site, including initiating legal proceedings in the high court to challenge the lease termination and taking on adjacent retail space to create a new entrance. However, discussions with the Crown Estate have thus far failed to yield an agreement. ​

According to media reports, the restaurant is set to mark its centenary next year, but its future now hinges on the outcome of an ongoing legal battle.

The Crown Estate has stated that the refurbishment plans are essential for upgrading the building's facilities and improving accessibility. However, the decision has sparked concerns about the preservation of cultural and historical institutions in the face of modern commercial developments.
 

Comments